Short term survival of critically ill COVID-19 Egyptian patients on assisted ventilation treated by either Dexamethasone or Tocilizumab

Scoping review on lessons learnt on the promotion and use of drugs and traditional medicine in Africa during COVID-19

ABSTRACTScientific evidence on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs, substances and herbal medicines is important in medical advertising and promotion. Following guidelines for conducting a scoping review, we systematically searched PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science to identify in peer reviewed articles medications that were promoted and used widely in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also searched for information about how safety concerns about untested/or not properly tested drugs were communicated to the public during the pandemic. Of the 2043 articles identified, 41 papers were eligible for inclusion. Most studies were clinical trials (n = 11), systematic reviews (n = 9), quantitative studies (n = 9) the rest were qualitative studies, reviews and reports. We found that following global trends, several drugs, traditional and herbal treatments were used and repurposed for the treatment of respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in Africa. The results highlighted the value of some herbal medicines for treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the risks posed by the unregulated sharing of advice and recommendations on treatments in Africa, and globally.

Does tocilizumab have an effect on the clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients? A meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of tocilizumab on clinical outcomes associated with COVID-19.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted across Scopus, PubMed (Medline), Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Elsevier), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Sciences to identify pertinent studies published until May 2022. The primary search terms included "tocilizumab" and "COVID-19". Following the formulation of the search strategy, all identified studies were screened, and the data extraction process was initiated. Subsequently, the Cochrane risk of bias checklist was employed to evaluate the risk of bias. The effects of tocilizumab were assessed utilizing the pooled risk ratio (RR) and the fixed effect model in STATA (version 17).

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, we analyzed 17 clinical trial studies to assess the impact of tocilizumab on mortality in patients with COVID-19. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for mortality was 0.93 (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00; I2: 72.39%; P value: 0.001). The findings indicated that tocilizumab use was associated with a 4% increase in ICU hospitalization (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.20; I2: 0.00%; P value: 0.65). Additionally, tocilizumab administration was linked to a 2% reduction in the requirement for a ventilator (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.08; I2: 26.87%; P value: 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The administration of tocilizumab during the COVID-19 pandemic, prescribed to patients with the virus, exerted a noteworthy impact on reducing outcomes associated with COVID-19.

Tocilizumab in ICU-admitted COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study

Background

Severe and critically-ill COVID-19 patients are characterized by a severe inflammatory response. Pharmacologic inhibition of acute-phase inflammatory pathways such as IL-6 receptor inhibitor, Tocilizumab (TCZ) may improve patient outcomes in these cases. Consequently, the therapeutic benefit of TCZ was evaluated in this study.

Methods

We evaluated intravenous tocilizumab in severe and critically ill adult COVID-19 patients who met pre-defined stringent CRS criteria. A single-center, prospective, observational cohort study was carried out among consecutive adult (≥18 years of age) in-patients with COVID-19 between March 20, 2020 and March 20, 2021. In total, 354 patients were included in our study. Mortality and time to hospital discharge were compared between patients who received tocilizumab treatment (n = 177) and those who did not (n = 177).

Results

A total of 354 patients were analyzed whereas 177 patients were included in each group. In those receiving TCZ, all-cause mortality was significantly reduced, corresponding to an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.57, (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.76; P < 0.001). Furthermore, time to discharge was significantly improved in the TCZ group (HR: 1.66; 95%CI: 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004). Invasive mechanical ventilation was not statistically different among the study groups after adjusting for confounding variables (HR: 1.38; 95%CI: 0.89-2.14; P = 0.139). Dosing frequency was independent of survival status (P = 0.676).

Conclusion

The use of TCZ in ICU-hospitalized patients resulted in improved patient survival and reduced duration of hospitalization. Further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of TCZ in severe and critical COVID-19 cases.

COVID-19 Induces Cytokine Storm and Dysfunctional Hemostasis

BACKGROUND

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 leads to COVID-19 which can manifest in various ways from asymptomatic or mild disease to acute respiratory distress syndrome. The occurrence of dysregulated inflammatory responses in the form of a cytokine storm has been reported in patients with severe COVID-19. Infection can also lead to dysfunctional hemostasis reflected in elevated circulating D-dimer and fibrin degradation products. Components of hemostasis and the immune system during infection can result in a procoagulation and/or proinflammatory state. The interplay between coagulation and inflammation has been elucidated in a number of diseases.

OBJECTIVE

In this article, we discuss the occurrence of cytokine storms and dysfunctional hemostasis induced in COVID-19.

METHODS

This review was written using literature from the past two to three years investigating coagulation and inflammation in COVID-19. Additional literature, both clinical and basic research, related to pathogen infection and host responses were also considered in this review.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can lead to dysregulated inflammatory responses that may be detrimental to the host. The increased expression of various inflammatory factors can ultimately create an environment that promotes thrombosis.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Thrombotic storm in coronavirus disease 2019: from underlying mechanisms to its management

Introduction. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, is associated with high mortality rates worldwide.

Hypothesis/Gap Statement. Thrombotic problems, such as coagulopathy, are common in COVID-19 patients. Despite anticoagulation, thrombosis is more common in patients in the intensive care unit and patients with more severe disease. Although the exact mechanisms of coagulopathy in COVID-19 patients are still unclear, studies showed that overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), cytokine storm, endothelial damage, formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), and also extracellular vesicles (EVs) in response to COVID-19 induced inflammation can lead to systemic coagulation and thrombosis.

Aim. The management of COVID-19 patients requires the use of basic and readily available laboratory markers, both on admission and during hospitalization. Because it is critical to understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19 induced coagulopathy and treatment strategies, in this review we attempt to explain the underlying mechanism of COVID-19 coagulopathy, its diagnosis, and the associated successful treatment strategies.

Conclusion. The exact mechanisms behind COVID-19-related coagulopathy are still unclear, but several studies revealed some mechanisms. More research is needed to determine the best anticoagulant regimen and to study other therapeutic options.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

METHODS

We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I² = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I² = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I² = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I² = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I² = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log₁₀; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between the neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and COVID-19 progression and mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Severe manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are associated with alterations in blood cells that regulate immunity, inflammation, and hemostasis. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between the neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and COVID-19 progression and mortality.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published between January 2020 and June 2022.

RESULTS

In 71 studies reporting the investigated parameters within 48 hours of admission, higher NLR (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27, p < 0.0001), relative neutrophilia (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.80, p < 0.0001), relative lymphopenia (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.08, p < 0.001), and relative thrombocytopenia (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.22, p < 0.001), but not PLR (p = 0.11), were significantly associated with disease progression and mortality. Between-study heterogeneity was large-to-extreme. The magnitude and direction of the effect size were not modified in sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

NLR and neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet count significantly discriminate COVID-19 patients with different progression and survival outcomes. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021267875).

Computational and Experimental Approaches Identify Beta-Blockers as Potential SARS-CoV-2 Spike Inhibitors

Finding antivirals for SARS-CoV-2 is still a major challenge, and many computational and experimental approaches have been employed to find a solution to this problem. While the global vaccination campaigns are the primary driver of controlling the current pandemic, orally bioavailable small-molecule drugs and biologics are critical to overcome this global issue. Improved therapeutics and prophylactics are required to treat people with circulating and emerging new variants, addressing severe infection, and people with underlying or immunocompromised conditions. The SARS-CoV-2 envelope spike is a challenging target for viral entry inhibitors. Pindolol presented a good docking score in a previous virtual screening using computational docking calculations after screening a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug library of 2400 molecules as potential candidates to block the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein interaction with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2). Here, we expanded the computational evaluation to identify five beta-blockers against SARS-CoV-2 using several techniques, such as microscale thermophoresis, NanoDSF, and in vitro assays in different cell lines. These data identified carvedilol with a K _d of 364 ± 22 nM for the SARS-CoV-2 spike and in vitro activity (EC₅₀ of 7.57 μM, CC₅₀ of 18.07 μM) against SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 cells. We have shown how we can apply multiple computational and experimental approaches to find molecules that can be further optimized to improve anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity.

Patterns of presentation, prevalence and associated factors of mortality in ICU among adult patients during the pandemic of COVID 19: A retrospective cross-sectional study

Background

There is concern that patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have variable prevalence reports of mortality. The survival rates are also inconsistently reported due to varying follow-up periods. Even if data on outcomes and baseline characteristics of ICU patients with COVID-19 is essential for action planning to manage complications, it is still left undisclosed in our study setting.

Materials and method

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 402 samples using a retrospective chart review of patient's data who were admitted in the past 2 years of the adult ICUs. All the data were entered and analyzed with SPSS version 21. A multivariable Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the association between outcome variables with independent factors and a p-value of less than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant with a 95% confidence interval. We used text, tables, and figures for the result.

Result

The overall prevalence of mortality among adult patients admitted to ICU during COVID-19 pandemics was 67.4%. From the multivariable logistic regression analysis, factors that were shown to have an association with an increase in ICU patient mortality were; lack of Vasopressor support, patients who had confirmed COVID 19 infection, core body temperature at admission greater than 37.5 °c, SPO2 at admission less than 90%, patients who had diagnosed ischemic heart disease (IHD), patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), patients who were intubated and mechanically ventilated (MV), and patient's ICU length of stay longer than two weeks.

Conclusion

The prevalence of ICU mortality in adult patients was higher in Debre Tabor Comprehensive specialized hospital. Therefore, clinicians need to minimize factors that maximize patient mortalities like ARDS, hyperthermia, Desaturation, Covid infection, IHD, intubation and MV, lack of Vasopressor use, and prolonged ICU stay.

-

The prevalence of mortality in ICU was 67.4%

-

Hyperthermia increases mortality in ICU

-

Use of vasopressor in ICU decreases mortality

Systemic administration of glucocorticoids, cardiovascular complications and mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, SARS, MERS or influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Administration of glucocorticoids might reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 but have adverse cardiometabolic effects.

OBJECTIVES

to investigate the effect of systemic administration of glucocorticoids on cardiovascular complications and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalised with respiratory viral infections, including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza.

METHODS

We identified randomised trials published prior to July 28th, 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects method and the Hartung and Knapp adjustment were used to obtain pooled estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

No randomised trials of glucocorticoids for SARS, MERS or influenza reported relevant outcomes. We included eleven COVID-19 randomised trials (8109 patients). Overall, compared to placebo or standard care, glucocorticoids were not associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.09). In a pre-specified sub-analysis, in-hospital mortality was reduced by 19% when follow-up was restricted to 14 days from randomisation (5/11 trials, 1329 patients, p = 0.02). With longer follow-up (9/11 trials, 7874 patients), administration of glucocorticoids was associated with a trend to benefit for those requiring mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.57-1.27) but possible harm for those not receiving oxygen at randomisation (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00 - 1.61), an effect that was significantly different amongst subgroups (p = 0.0359). Glucocorticoids reduced the risk of worsening renal function by 37% (4/11 trials); reported rate of other cardiovascular complications was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of systemic glucocorticoids to patients hospitalised with COVID-19 does not lower mortality overall but may reduce it in those requiring respiratory support and increase it in those who do not.

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021).

Review methods

Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis.

Results

Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Host-modifying drugs against COVID-19: some successes, but not yet the breakthrough

After reviewing antiviral drugs (Brüssow Environmental Microbiology 2021) the present review summarizes the results of clinical trials with host‐modifying drugs in COVID‐19 patients. Clinical benefits were observed with different immunomodulators. The variable outcomes of trials with the interleukin 6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab demonstrated that treatment benefits might only be present in specific subgroups of patients or in specific infection stages. A meta‐analysis of trials with the interleukin 1 receptor antagonist anakinra showed a survival benefit only in patients with hyperinflammation. The Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib is an anti‐inflammatory treatment that showed a clinical benefit in hospitalized patients who do not yet need supplementary oxygen. In contrast, the corticosteroid dexamethasone showed mortality reducing effects that were limited to patients on ventilation or in need of supplementary oxygen. Therapeutic dose of anticoagulation met the criteria for inferiority in severe cases, but showed a small survival benefit in non‐severe COVID‐19 patients. Large trials with colchicine showed a small or no survival benefit. Azithromycin, an antibiotic with immunomodulatory activity, showed no effects in numerous clinical trials. The trials showed a clear need for new drugs instead of repurposed drugs and drugs that specifically target the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus or the pathology developing in COVID‐19 patients.

Efficacy and safety of IL-6 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multicentre, randomized trials

PURPOSE

COVID-19 is characterized by dysregulated immune response, respiratory failure and a relevant mortality rate among hospitalized patients. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is involved in COVID-19-associated cytokine storm, and several trials investigated whether its inhibition could improve patients' outcome. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCT) to test this hypothesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two independent investigators searched PubMed, Scopus, ClnicalTrials.gov and medRxiv up to September 1st, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: administration of tocilizumab or sarilumab; COVID-19 adult patients with pneumonia; and being a RCT. Primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included intubation rate and incidence of adverse events. Two independent investigators extracted data from eligible trials.

RESULTS

Of the 763 studies assessed, 15 RCTs were included (9,320 patients), all were multicentre, and the majority open-label vs standard treatment. IL-6 inhibitors were associated with reduced all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up (1315/5,380 [24.4%] in the IL-6 inhibitors group versus 1080/3,814 [28.3%] in the control group, RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; p for effect = 0.003, I2 = 0%, with 13 studies included), with reduction in 28/30-day mortality and intubation rates, and with no increase in adverse events and secondary infections.

CONCLUSION

IL-6 inhibitors reduced longest follow-up mortality and intubation in COVID-19 patients. Findings need to be confirmed in high-quality RCTs.

Use of steroids in COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

Background

Emerging reports have shown the benefits of steroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients as life-saving drugs. However, the use of steroids in COVID-19 patients is confusing among many physicians.

Aim

The aim of the current study was to find out the exact association of steroids in the deaths of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

The relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Google scholar, and Clinical trials registries till May 25, 2021 and sorted out based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using a standard scale. The pooled odds ratio was calculated with a 95% confidence interval. The sensitivity and sub-group analyses were also done. The publication bias was assessed qualitatively. The Rev Man 5 was used for all analyses with a random-effect model.

Results

The quantitative analysis was done with 9922 patients (6265-male and 3657-females) from 21 relevant studies. The pooled estimate results i.e. 0.52 [0.34, 0.80] have shown a significant reduction in deaths of COVID-19 patients in the steroidal group as compared to the non-steroidal group. The sensitivity analyses did not alter our conclusions. In subgroup analysis, methylprednisolone has shown a significant reduction in deaths of COVID-19 patients as compared to the non-steroidal group, however, more clinical evidence is required for dexamethasone and hydrocortisone.

Conclusion

The use of steroids in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is useful to reduce deaths.

Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods: We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications.

Results: We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates.

Conclusions: This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Update: Drug treatment options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) continues to rage as a global pandemic. A number of potential therapeutic agents have been explored over the past year or two. However, numerous drugs that were expected to prove highly effective, such as lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir, have been found to have little benefit in large clinical trials. Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, glucocorticoids, Janus kinase inhibitors, and some antivirals have been found to provide significant benefits in terms of reducing viral load, reducing the time of nucleic acid conversion, or improving survival. For example, bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which are newly designed monoclonal antibodies against the surface spike protein S1 subunit receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, have a significant effect on reducing the viral load and the hospitalization rate of patients with mild COVID-19. Several vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been widely administered worldwide and have provided good protection. Nevertheless, the increasingly hardy variants of the virus have raised the requirements for vaccine design. Perhaps RBD-based vaccines are a viable way to defend against variants, but this still needs to be verified in a large sample. Therefore, this paper provides an update on the treatment options for COVID-19 based on three previously proposed dimensions of drug screening: standard assays of existing broad-spectrum antivirals, screening of chemical libraries, and redevelopment of new, specific drugs.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

The role of integrated programs in the prevention of COVID-19 in a humanitarian setting

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a severe depletion to health systems worldwide. In the South Kordofan state, a war-torn humanitarian region in Sudan, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the WHO Emergencies Programme have led the development of integrated programs for health, peace and rehabilitation by training rapid response teams to strengthen both surveillance system and response capacities, engaging the communities at risk with health education and promotion activities, as well as following proper infection, prevention and control measures during case investigation. Also, Early Help Assessment coordinators met with health services managers and recruited 14 teams who were trained to ensure a rapid response to COVID-19. Also, the implementation of water, sanitation and hygiene services was upscaled. Although the local community of South Kordofan is fragile and at high risk of infectious diseases, the limited numbers of detected cases of COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths could be attributed to the early preparation and integration of programs that helped to prevent the local spread of COVID-19. This lesson needs to be thoroughly investigated to estimate whether it is cost-effective and to determine the feasibility of it being successfully implemented in other humanitarian settings.